Folding cameras vs. Rolleis

Although I love the 6x6 format, I also want a good 4,5x6 and 6x9

camera for rectangular color photos, so I have bought and tried a

couple. None of them are as sharp as my Rolleis, not even if they

have Tessar lenses. My Rolleicords with the Triotar are sharper!

 

50�s 6x9 Nettar with 4,5 Novar � Nope, not sharp enough.

 

30�s 6x9 Nettar with 4,5 Tessar � Nope, not sharp enough. My example

didn�t even improve in sharpness by stopping down.

 

30�s 6x9 Ikonta with 4,5 Tessar � Nope, not sharp enough.

 

50�s 6x9 Ercona with 3,5 Tessar � Nope

 

50�s 6x9 Ercona with 3,5 Tessar � Nope, not even this one.

 

50�s 6x6 and 4,5x6 Weltax with 3,5 Tessar � No! Something must be

wrong with this lens. Kept the camera for spare parts.

 

50�s 6x6 and 4,5x6 Weltax with 3,5 Tessar � Nope, not sharp enough.

Ok if negs not enlarged too much.

 

40�s 6x9 Ensign Selfix with 3,8 Xpres � Very sharp in the center,

but blurry at edges.

 

20�s 6x9 Certonet with 3,8 Unofokal � Not sharp enough, but ok if

negs not enlarged too much.

 

Why is that? I want a 6x9 classic folder that gives results that can

compare with my Rolleis in sharpness. Negs that I can enlarge to

40x50 or so and enjoy the larger neg format. But my experience so

far tells me that I can get _much_ sharper results with my pre-war

Rolleicords with Triotar than with any of the folders!

 

What should I do? Do I have bad luck and need to look for other

folders? Are the Voigtländers better than Zeiss? Or should I be

happy with my Rolleis and have the color negs I want enlarged

cropped by the lab to the rectangular format?

 

I feel so irritated I could bang my forehead against the wall right

now. :-(

I've had similar disappointment with a folder (Agfa Isolette) not being as sharp as a TLR (Mamiya C3). Perhaps folding cameras are inherantly just not that precise.

 

A reasonably compact/light 6x9 for really sharp images is the Fuji GW690. I had the 6x7 version of this camera, and man was it sharp, but eventually I decided that 6x7 was not for me. The Fuji may not have the cachet of a vintage folder, but it is completely mechanical, battery-free, and out of production.

 

I also have a Brooks-Plaubel Veriwide, which is 6x10, made in the 50'2-60's. Has a Super Angulon 47mm. Remarkably small for the format, looks like a 35mm. Way, way, too sharp. If you like to shoot wide, consider it.

 

Don't forget the tripod, for maximum sharpness.

I think the major issue is that the tolerances for a folding camera's optics will always be less than a TLR because the lens must be able to collapse down and will never be held as rigidly when unfolded. Secondly, those with guess focusing won't produce as sharp a result if you miss the focus. Depth of field can cover you but in a big enlargement you must have the focus perfect. Those with rangefinders need to be properly adjusted.

 

I'd be interested to hear how well a top-end folder like a Super Ikonta holds-up vs. a Rolleiflex.

Two issues here.

 

If these folders are scale-focusing cameras, obviously this will make focus less accurate than a properly adjusted TLR. Try using an auxiliary rangefinder. Of course coupled rangefinder cameras need to be adjusted properly, so check this as well.

 

Secondly, there is a bit of a learning curve with the ergonomics of a new camera. Compare your Rolleiflex to the folder using a tripod, and if you can get satisfying results that way, work on figuring out what you need to do to hold the camera steady. I'm still not there yet with my Voigtlander Bessa II with Heliar, with its left hand shutter release and lens way out front, magnifying any slight movement. I can do verticals better than horizontals, so far, but under the loupe, I'm still not absolutely steady yet with this one.

It sounds like you've been comparing a unit focusing Rollei with a front cell focusing folder. Have you considered any of the Fujica G690 line of 6 by 9 range finders?

You might try a Kodak Monitor with a Special Anastigmat If you don't mind respooling to 620.

There is alot of great info posted above. A Rollei TLR that is in good shape ususally will have more consistant focus; than a floppy folder. Here I also Have a Russian Moscova 5; that is a 6x9 cm 120 film folder. With a test target at a close 1:16 ratio; the best apertures was F11 and F16; with a lines/mm of 45 and 40 at the very center; with Ilford FP4. The far corners were alot poorer; with best aperature at F11. The top right corner was T/R 23/28 . The top left was 11/28 The lower corner was 11/28. The lower right was 20/28. These are line pairs/mm; in Tangential and Radial sets of data. The lens is a 4 element clone of the tessar.

I regularly use a Zeiss 521/2 Ikonta 6x9 w/ Tessar and a Rolleiflex 3.5E w/ Planar. Although I get get great photos with the folder, there's no doubt that the Rollei w/Planar blows it out of the water. It can match my modern MF gear in quality. Besides lens design, it's much harder to focus accurately with the folders, and the min hand held speed is much higher. I need to go at least 1/250th (or is it 1/200th, I can't remember right now) to get the best sharpness with the folder, while I can usually do just fine at 1/30th with the TLR.

One reason might be the condition the camera is in, if the front assembly is not rigid and in correct position sharpness will suffer. A Rollei of similar vintage is not as vulnerable to misalignment, though the front panel can be off-kilter.

 

The Fuji 6x9's are in a different league but they are not folders and are also much newer cameras.

The Russian folder Moscova 5 is a rangefinder; at least mine is easy to focus. My old Kodak Vigilant 620 uses scale focusing; one paces off the distance or uses a tape measure; or guesses.

Christopher Condit ... if you ever decide to sell you veriwide camera, let me know.

My experience with medium format cameras to get sharp slides is as follows;

After trying out several systems, I am very happy with the Fuji BL690 with 100mm AE lens, and the Graflex XLW with the Schneider 47mm/8.0 lens, in addition to Rolleiflex TLR cameras. Note that none of these cameras is a SLR camera. The Rolleiflex TLR cameras have superb lenses, whether they are Planars or Xenotars. Not having a mirror makes these cameras more robust and better suited for longer exposures.

I agree-these cameras just don't perform as well of the ones I've tried. I have gotten

good to excellent images from a Moskov, but you really must buy in my experience

several cameras to find a good one. This is a market that never really got answered

well because post-war camera development went into the great medium format SLR

system cameras used by commercial and advertising photographers. I have seen the

images from a Plauble Makina 67 and they are excellent-too bad not eough demand

for a camera of that format, size, quality and usability. I have stopped trying out

vintage folders for the reasons mentioned above. GO

My experience with a bunch of these folders is that the lenses are

much better than the film plane flatness and alignment of the front

standard/lens. You generally won't see what the lens is truely capable

of due to these mechanical problems. I have verified this by attaching

several of these old lenses to a 4X5. The results were far better than

what I could get in the camera. While they aren't as good as the Fuji

lenses esp at f/8 and wider, the 4 element tessars types perform well

at f/11-22.

Not an attempt at an answer, and indeed a departure at a tangent . . .

but what's the image quality like from this or that variety of the (old)

Mamiya Six when it's fairly wide open? (Perhaps mistakenly, I imagine

that they're pretty good at f11 or smaller.) I've read that design whereby

the film plane rather than lens moves helps matters, but I may have

misunderstood, and/or this may have been exaggerated. Of course it's

6x6, so probably of little interest to Patric.

A good 6x9 camera requires three things:<p>

 

1) A good lens. I'd pick the Tessar over the Triotar or Novar any day.<p>

 

2) A rigid lens assembly<p>

 

3) Keeping the film flat against the gate and not allowing it to curl. 6x9 is a lot of area to cover, and it's possible that your pressure plate isn't pressing hard enough.<p>

 

Also, with cameras this old, there is a possibility that someone has dropped it, possibly preventing the lens from sitting parallel to the film plane.<p>

 

I have an Ikonta 6x9 with an f/4.5 Tessar from the 1930s that I've used quite a bit, and it's very sharp when stopped down to f/11 or smaller.<p>

 

How far down are you stopping the lenses? If you stop down too far, you might run into diffraction.<p>

 

Here's my well-worn <a href=http://pages.prodigy.net/mm-elek/Ikonta120.htm target=_new><b>Ikonta sample page</b></a> that I've thrown up here too many times.<p>

 

 

Finally, are you sure it's not your scanner/enlarger and not the camera? Negatives this large must be kept flat when scanning and enlarging.

Final questions -- are you using a tripod? Or shooting hand-held? And which shutter speeds or film do you generally use?

Umm, does a baby Linhof (or VHR) count? They fold, they tilt, they shift, they're RF-coupled for up to 3 lenses, they're killer sharp (even with original lenses, but you can use modern glass in up to Compur #1 on the GG) ... they weigh a lot more than your Rollei ...

Yes, I'm using a tripod and the cameras are all in good shape. The lens assembly is rigid on all of them. The bellows folds out and the assembly clicks perfectly in place. I always use to test the lens by taking test photos with the largest aperture and then stop down to 5,6, 8, 11 and 16.

 

When I adjusted the focus on my Weltax and Ercona cameras I used a groundglass in the film plane and checked it with a 12x loupe. It looks ok and sharp on the groundglass. So maybe I have a problem with film flatness? I have noticed that the film "points" inwards a little in my 6x9 roll film backs for plate cameras.

 

I have a test roll in one of my Erconas at the moment, Agfa APX 100, and I will try a couple of shots at infinity and compare the sharpness with the focus set at infinity and then at 15 meters to see if this compensates for the film flatness. If it does, I will try to adjust the lens again.

 

Mike Elek, I have seen your Ikonta sample photo many times, and this is the result I'm striving at. :-) I haven't scanned any of the test rolls, just used the enlarger in my darkroom.

Patric, if you're able to scan some of your results, it makes it very easy to check sharpness in the corners.

 

By the way, don't bang your head against the wall. It hurts. I used to have a colleague who couldn't handle stress at all. Some of my friends would often see him in the men's bathroom, banging his head against the paper towel holder. I saw him doing this one time.

Phew, Mike, I just checked the focus on one of the Erconas, and it was off by 1mm on the focus scale. I checked the focus with the fine grained Rollei groundglass and the newer fresnel matte screen I borrowed from my 2,8F.

 

I wished I had a better loupe. Now I used my loupe PLUS w the +10 B+W close up lens. It was difficult to hold them together, press the gg in the film plane AND adjusting the front lens element.

 

No, I so not suffer from stress. I'm just a bit irritated. My forehead will stay away from the wall. I'll just poke the screwdriver in my eye instead. ;-)

Should be "do not", not "so not".

I agree with some of the others. If you want sharp get the Fuji rangefinder. You will probably end up paying about as much trying to find the perfect folder. I get good small images from my four element lens 6x6 and 6x9 folders but a sharp 40x50 would be hard. Especially when compared to a print from an 8x10 negative. I found my Century Graphic to produce much sharper images with a variety of old and new lenses. But much larger. Sharpness isn't everything though.

Patric:

1) the Rolleflex T (60es) - 6X6 with 6X4.5 possibility TLR camera (you probably know it); the Tessar 75mm/3.5, coated, lanthanum glass, resolving more than 90 lpmm at f5.6, beats my Rolleiflex 3.5F and about 200g lighter;

 

2) the Koni Omega Rapid (60-70es) any camera of that family � most reliable of any RF- camera of 6X7 format, having really great lenses (hexanons)comparable to CZ ones. But a little cumbersome comparing with Mamya 7, though the best value for money: $200-300 with Hexanon 90mm F 3.5 (lanthanum glass!)

 

Any folder I used (about 20) had either a weak standard producing vibrations during shutter releasing, or a rotating front element affecting centering while focusing, or a very bad pressing plate, or a non-adequate to a GG range finder.

Well, you could quit wasting your money on pocketable folders that may have been abused and weren't outstanding when new. Instead, get a nice 2x3 press camera and put very good old or better modern lenses on it.

 

I shoot 2x3 Graphics and am usually pleased with the results they give. 2x3 Horseman and Linhof cameras have even more appeal but cost more and are harder to use with short lenses. These things all fold, although putting any in a pocket requires a very large pocket.

 

And press cameras, unlike your pocketable fixed-lens folders, can be used for more than just normal lens snapshots. I use lenses ranging from a 38/4.5 Biogon to a 12"/4 Taylor Hobson telephoto on my Graphics, even shoot close-up with proper macro lenses (100/6.3 Reichert Neupolar) and enlarging lenses.

 

If age matters, well, my Graphics are pre-1970 and so are most of the lenses I use on them. There's lots of good old (but not that old, most of my lenses are post-WW II) glass around that will go on press cameras' boards or in front of, e.g., #1 shutters.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

Patric: One more photo, just to show that I took more than one photo with this camera!

 

http://pages.prodigy.net/mm-elek/cameras/Great-Wall.jpg

 

This is a large download -- nearly 2 megabytes, so only get it if you have the bandwidth OR the time. And I'm not going to leave it up longer than a week.

 

This photo is equivalent at this resolution to 22 inches x 34 inches.

 

This was shot on Ektachrome 200 shot at about 11 a.m. through a pale yellow filter (an old, but clean, push-on filter) to give it a late-afternoon effect. The camera was mounted on a monopod, which was leaning against a section of the Wall for additional support. I think this was at f/8 and about 1/100 or maybe 1/50.

 

I later cropped this to get the shot I wanted. I also have some other shots taken on Agfapan 100 inside a dark room in which I shot wide open and guessed at exposure and distance, if you want to see these.